<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;Re: Windows Vista and RAm&#x27; in forum &#x27;Microsoft Help&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22590426</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:57:48 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:57:48 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAM</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAM-22731535</link>
<description><![CDATA[bangaroo posted : Not sure if this is of help or not, but I found a way to increase my recognized physical memory from 2519 to 3065 by changing my Bios setting from Switchable Graphics to Discrete Graphics.  <br><br>I have a Lenovo T500 Thinkpad laptop with switchable graphics, which I guess is supposed to help with battery life.  I also have a 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon 3650 graphics card.<br><br>I changed the following Bios setting.<br><br>Config > Display > Graphics Device > change to DISCRETE GRAPHICS<br><br>I also think I changed the following, but I don't quit remember for sure.<br><br>Config > Display > Graphics Device > OS Detection for Switchable Graphics > change to DISABLE<br><br>It took more than one reboot before all 546MB was recognized.<br><br>Switchable Graphics Enabled<br> <IMG SRC="http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1442354~d703412c6d02bb71f5f41d1f04f49f54/tsk.jpg"> <br><br>Discrete Graphics Enabled<br> <IMG SRC="http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/4722/task3065.jpg"> ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAM-22731535</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:42:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22669519</link>
<description><![CDATA[longstreet posted : I lost track of what exactly was being argued a while back.<br><br>My comments have been regarding the OP's original problem : not having enough RAM.<br><br>While a multitude of solutions exist, I believe what I suggested is best, because it maximizes the amount of usable ram on the machine at any given point versus ANY other suggestion, AND it's as performant and costs less.<br><br>While running idle two similar setups may in fact show the same amount of usable ram, when under load while gaming, the tendancy of the larger card to fill up MORE addressing space than the smaller card isn't desirable, which I why I suggest going with a 512.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22669519</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:46:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22652796</link>
<description><![CDATA[MHoltum posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/502781" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=502781');">RobinM</a>:</small><br><br>I have been told I do not have enough RAM to run Windows Vista.  I have Vista home premium (32-bit) and I have 2 gig of RAM.  Could someone please tell me if I have enough or not?  Vista came on my computer so I would assume that it came with enough to run the darn thing.<br><br>Thanks!!<br> </div>My Vista Home Premium Dell computer has 2 Gig and is fine for anything I have done.<br><br>However I just built a quadcore with 6 gig and Vista really loves it. <br><br>More is better but IMO 2 is ok for most apps.<br><small>--<br>Sarcasm, confusing stupid people since 1869</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22652796</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:47:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22650306</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : i gave one PAGES back no one wanted to hear it becouse of the "4GB Boggyman"<br><br>Ill restate it <br><br>Get 2x2GB of DDR2 800 or better<br>Get a GTS250 or 4850<br>BFG, eVGA, XFX for the nVidia card in that order <br>XFX for the ATi/AMD one <br> <br>ok late edit for real<br><br>IF the 4GB limit worrys you that much Win7 RC1 is still there get it<br>and pre-order the upgrade for 50 bucks<br>/thread]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22650306</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:24:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22650206</link>
<description><![CDATA[ztmike posted : Does every thread in this forum need to be drawn out like this? <br><br>No wonder no beginners come in here, you guys draw it out with stuff they don't understand with paragraphs that you can write a story about. <br><br>The guy is simply looking for a direct answer..now look at this thread.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22650206</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:01:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22649617</link>
<description><![CDATA[bangaroo posted : I am a rookie at this and I am having trouble connecting all the dots, but isn't there some program/software that shows exactly how the 4G physical ram is being allocated?<br><br>Example<br><br>...100mb - BIOS<br>...250 mb - Video card<br><u>1,131 mb</u> - all others listed<br>1,481 mb - Total used/allocated<br>2,519 mb- Cached and Free shown in Task manager<br>4,000 mb- Total Physical Ram]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22649617</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:36:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22649072</link>
<description><![CDATA[Leathal posted : While some come with DDR3. :-)<br><br>L.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22649072</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:38:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22649065</link>
<description><![CDATA[Leathal posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/502781" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=502781');">RobinM</a>:</small><br><br>Ok ty.  I have someone trying to tell me that the recommended is 3gb.  I thought my comp ran just fine..including playing WoW..<br> </div>I play WoW on a 8GB machine! :-)<br><br>Leathal]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22649065</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:37:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22647615</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : *facedesk*<br><br>read the MSDN<br>IT DOESNT NEED TO <br>it just pages what it needs via bank swiching<br>the GPU it self keeps track of whats in the framebuffer<br>then the driver maps a range in my case 256MB to the virtual address table <br>and any IO uses that range <br><br>works JUST like swap space which also doesnt need to be addressed just a range in the same way the GPU handles calls to the framebuffer<br><blockquote><br>Before the video memory manager can manage the address space of the GPU, the display miniport driver must describe the GPU's address space to the video memory manager by using memory segments. The display miniport driver creates memory segments <b>to generalize and virtualize video memory resources.</b> The driver can configure memory segments according to the memory types that the hardware supports (for example, frame buffer memory or system memory aperture).<br></blockquote><br><br><blockquote><br>Commit limit on aperture segment<br>    The amount of system memory that the video memory manager allows display miniport drivers to pin down (that is, the amount of system memory that display miniport drivers can memory map through an aperture segment) for GPU use at any given instant. The total amount of system memory that is allocated for the GPU might exceed the commit limit greatly; however, the video memory manager ensures that only up to a commit limit amount is actually resident in an aperture segment at any one time.<br></blockquote><br><br><blockquote><br>A linear aperture-space segment is similar to a linear memory-space segment; however, the aperture-space segment is only an address space and cannot hold bits. To hold the bits, system memory pages must be allocated, and the address-space range must be redirected to refer to those pages.<br></blockquote>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22647615</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:07:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22646785</link>
<description><![CDATA[longstreet posted : What you are being shown and what it actually uses up are two different numbers.<br><br>Are you saying it won't address all of the VRAM when it needs it?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22646785</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:57:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22624423</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : AH HA<br>i found it!<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms801502.aspx" >msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library&middot;&middot;&middot;502.aspx</A><br><br>/thread<br><br><blockquote><br>The driver is not required to specify all video memory resources that are available to the GPU in its memory segments; however, the driver must specify all memory resources that the video memory manager manages among all processes running on the system.<br></blockquote><br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms801469.aspx" >msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library&middot;&middot;&middot;469.aspx</A>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22624423</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:46:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22624207</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : that needs to address directly it doesnt need to have direct access to the vram and by that logic it would have to map out ALL of swap file oh wait thats right it doesnt IT PAGES JUST LIKE THE GPU<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framebuffer" >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framebuffer</A><br><br><blockquote><br>Mapping a memory range smaller than the framebuffer memory, then bank switching as necessary.<br></blockquote><br><br>wile it CAN be mapped 1 to 1 this only done with cards with less then 512MB of ram on them<br><br>so unless you can back up your statements with memory ranges in the device manager which is it is 1 to 1 should have ranges adding up to the total on the card its useing bank switching<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_switching" >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_switching</A> <br><br>see 4 ranges<br><br>frist one is A0000 to BFFFF this is less then 1 MB ~127KB<br>next is the big one D0000000 to DFFFFFFF this is 256MB<br>then the next is 32MB A000000 to BFFFFFF<br>the last is 16MB wide FD000000 to FDFFFFFF<br><br>even rounding up to 1MB on the frist one its only 305MB of address space in use if it was fully mapped it should be using 896MB but its using 1/2 that <div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF nwrap COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/22624207?c=1443787&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyMjU5MDQ2NS54bWw%3D"><IMG class="apic" BORDER=0 TITLE="126923 bytes" WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=680 SRC="/r0/download/1443787.thumb600~f19e1d25950afec94b21f5f6365c3ff8/gpuram.png/thumb.jpg" ALT="Click for full size"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22624207</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:48:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22623575</link>
<description><![CDATA[Margolis posted : 1]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22623575</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:49:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22623569</link>
<description><![CDATA[Margolis posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1290198" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1290198');">elios</a>:</small><br><br> <br>the GPU has its own memory controler that does its OWN addressing it just has a range in which the CPU can hand off data to<br><br> </div>the os has to know where ALL memory it is using is.  The video card may have it's own controller.  but windows still has it addressed for it to be used. <br><br>As for where I got the number;<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit" >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit</A><br><br><div class="bquote">of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 </div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22623569</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:46:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22623348</link>
<description><![CDATA[dave posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/903563" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=903563');">Margolis</a>:</small><br><br>sorry, but you need to do a bit of research. </div>Sigh, I do this system programming stuff for a living. I have written Windows kernel code. I know how it works.<br><br>If the OS supports PAE, applications can be paged into RAM anywhere, without application change. Even above the 4GB line.  This sounds awfully like an application "taking advantage" of PAE to me -- its memory accesses naturally are relocated through the PAE mechanisms.  Though since "taking advantage" is not a concept defined in the processor reference manual, I suppose there is wiggle room there.<br><br>So, statement so far: applications can use physical memory above the 4GB line without modification.<br><br>Now,  a regular application has access to only its 4GB of virtual address space (of which 2GB [or 3] belongs to it, and 2GB [or 1] holds the OS global address space [depending on /3GB switch]).  The 4GB limit on virtual address space naturally imposes a limit on how much RAM can be accessed (but not on where that RAM is located in the physical address space).<br><br>An application that wants to access more than 4GB of RAM, despite the limitations of its address space, can use AWE to create a physical-memory-backed section of larger size than it can address, and then remap a window from its address space into the section.<br><br>So: an application using AWE can access a total of more than 4GB of memory.<br><br>Key distinctions to be made when talking about this:<br><br>1)  Virtual versus physical.<br><br>2)  "Above the 4GB line" versus "more than 4GB from one process"<br><br><div class="bquote"> It can be extended in virtual memory with PAE, yes.</div>Nonsense. PAE is Physical Address Extension. It makes physical addresses larger. It does not change virtual addressing at all.  PAE only changes the mechanisms the processor uses to translate virtual to physical.  Without PAE,  page tables deliver 20 bits of page frame number (i.e., 32 bits physical address). With PAE, page tables deliver 24 bits of page frame number (i.e., 36 bits physical address).<br><br><div class="bquote">But by default, PAE is off in windows 32, unless you are are running the Server versions.</div>Nonsense. PAE is on in my 32-bit XP Pro systems with 2GB RAM.<br><br>(The reason PAE is on even in small-memory systems is that you have to have PAE on in order to get no-execute support. The 4GB physical limit in XP is not due to lack of PAE, it is an artificial limit due to Microsoft marketing/support policy).<br><br><div class="bquote">And that 4GB of address range is all address, not just system.  </div>Indeed. But as I keep saying, there is no intrinsic reason why memory on a video board needs to even have an address on the bus, all of the time.  It's a matter between a board and the drivers.  (I also say I don't know what current implementations actually do).]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22623348</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:23:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622891</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : ill post this screen shot AGAIN since you missed it<br>note the BIGGEST RANGE IS ZOMG 256MB then a 128MB then a few 32MB an 16MB <br>and then add up to much less then 892MB thats on the card<br>go look for your self on your 1GB card it wont be using all 1GB becouse thats just bad way to use ram in a32bit system<br><br>the GPU has its own memory controler that does its OWN addressing it just has a range in which the CPU can hand off data to<br><br>and were did you get this 4.2GB number the hardlimit is 4GB of address space FULL STOP<br><br>yes with PAE you can have 36bit addressing<br>but most consumer drivers dont use it <br><br>go look in your device manager your self add up the ranges i be it comes to less then 1GB<div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF nwrap COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/22622891?c=1443655&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyMjU5MDQ2NS54bWw%3D"><IMG class="apic" BORDER=0 TITLE="135373 bytes" WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=654 SRC="/r0/download/1443655.thumb600~82aea0467c687015f8403c5c9005ba43/gpuaddress.png/thumb.jpg" ALT="Click for full size"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622891</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:55:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622750</link>
<description><![CDATA[Tychicus posted : Duchess in my humble opinion just get as much RAM as your motherboard can handle since RAM is about the cheapest upgrade you can do at this point in time.<br><br>Also go to crucials web site and it will auto detect the RAM your motherboard can use here is a link<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.crucial.com/systemscanner/" >www.crucial.com/systemscanner/</A><br><br>I would then go to someplace like newegg and get some which will probably be a lot cheaper however Crucial does warrenty thier stuff. <br><small>--<br><b><A HREF="/forum/disco">Team Discovery</a></b></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622750</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:59:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622730</link>
<description><![CDATA[Margolis posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1290198" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1290198');">elios</a>:</small><br><br>vram is not directly addressed its paged with a hole 256 to 512MB in size any other "loss" is do the other stuff in your PC using address space <br><br>if it was the case that ram was mapped 1:1<br>and you had 512MB card you would have less tehn 3.5GB becouse other hardware needs ranges too it would be more like 3.2 or less<br><br>the size of the hole is set in BIOS on my system its 256MB + ~128MB for other IO that it uses when i was in XP left me with 3.25GB out of 4GB and this is with 896MB card<br> </div>vram is mapped just like system memory. windows has limited address space.  It does not go by a "hole" as you keep saying.  That may have been how agp memory was mapped to virtual space, but not pcie.   with a 512mb card and 4GB you would have ~3.5GB usable in most cases.  The bios and other things needing address space are insignificant.  32bit windows can access ~4.2GB of memory, minus your your 896MB and assorted others you end up with ~3.2GB, what you see.  I boot my computer up in xp 32, with a 1GB video card, it sees 3.1GB system.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622730</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:46:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622724</link>
<description><![CDATA[Margolis posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/156437" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=156437');">dave</a>:</small><br><br>  The vistaclues web site is clueless. Here's why.<br><br><div class="bquote">Here&#146;s the catch: applications have to be written specifically to take advantage of PAE.</div>Utterly, utterly untrue.<br><br> </div>sorry, but you need to do a bit of research.  Vistaclues is absolutely correct according to microsoft.  Applications have to be written using the Address Windowing Extensions (AWE) application programming interface (api).  If they don't, they can't take advantage of PAE.  The 4GB video card works because of PAE and the drivers using the correct api.  You need to watch what you are calling "silly statements".  the fact remains that 32 bit windows has only 4GB of address space, no matter how you slice it.  It can be extended in virtual memory with PAE, yes.  But by default, PAE is off in windows 32, unless you are are running the Server versions. And that 4GB of address range is all address, not just system.  <br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx" >www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pl&middot;&middot;&middot;mem.mspx</A><br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm" >www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm</A><br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx" >msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library&middot;&middot;&middot;85).aspx</A>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622724</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:43:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622194</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : vram is not directly addressed its paged with a hole 256 to 512MB in size any other "loss" is do the other stuff in your PC using address space <br><br>if it was the case that ram was mapped 1:1<br>and you had 512MB card you would have less tehn 3.5GB becouse other hardware needs ranges too it would be more like 3.2 or less<br><br>the size of the hole is set in BIOS on my system its 256MB + ~128MB for other IO that it uses when i was in XP left me with 3.25GB out of 4GB and this is with 896MB card]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622194</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:18:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622164</link>
<description><![CDATA[dave posted : You're right. Anything running on the CPU at any instant of time has access to no more than 4GB of physical address space on the system bus.<br><br>What you're completely overlooking is that there may be no need for all graphics memory to be accessible from the system bus at the same instant of time.<br><br>What is your explanation for how the 4GB video card is possible?<br><br>------------------------------<br>The vistaclues web site is clueless. Here's why.<br><br><div class="bquote">Here&#146;s the catch: applications have to be written specifically to take advantage of PAE.</div>Utterly, utterly untrue.<br><br>Once again, someone can't tell the difference between virtual addressing and physical addressing.  Still, the concepts were only invented in 1960, so I guess it's early days yet.<br><br>Here's a hint: a plain old Win32 program will execute without modification on a suitable Windows Server platform just fine, even if it finds itself executing above the 4GB physical line.<br><br>If you don't understand this, then you have no idea how a memory management unit works, not indeed how processor addressing works, and you ought not to be making such silly statements.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622164</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:07:50 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622091</link>
<description><![CDATA[Margolis posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1290198" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1290198');">elios</a>:</small><br><br> FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU<br><br>did you MISS ALL MY POST IT DOESNT WORK THAT WAY<br>THE RAM ON THE CARD IS NOT MAPPED 1 TO 1 ANY MORE AND HASNT BEEN SINCE MOST CARDS HAD OVER 256MB ON THEM <br>RAGGGEEEE<br>ITS THE SAME IN THAT SWAP FILE IS NOT MAPPED 1 TO 1 <br>WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND JUST LOOK AT THE LAST POST I MADE<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_address_space" >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_address_space</A><br><br> </div>I saw your post. It is meaningless.   32bit windows can only address 4GB of ram.  That includes video ram.  we are not talking about virtual memory here, we are talking real ram. <br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-maximum-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/" >www.vistaclues.com/reader-questi&middot;&middot;&middot;s-vista/</A>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22622091</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:42:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620999</link>
<description><![CDATA[RobinM posted : I have an ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO.  And the wattage is 350W]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620999</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:05:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620950</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : yea<br><br>totaly replace what you have now take a look at the ram i linked its cheaper a better brand and MUCH faster and will run at DDR2 800 speeds which your CPU was made for using DDR2 667 on a quad core is a sin go DDR2 800 or better it doesnt cost any more as you can see]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620950</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:40:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620646</link>
<description><![CDATA[ztmike posted : I saw you made a thread in the PC Gaming forum..check my reply in there for a recommendation on what GPU and PSU.<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="/forum/r22596122-Looking-to-upgrade-memory-and-possibly-video-card#22608491">Looking to upgrade memory and possibly video card</A> ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620646</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:54:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620567</link>
<description><![CDATA[ztmike posted :   <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>So I should just replace the 2gig I already have?  And that price is great!<hr></blockquote><br><br>I would. More than likely you have a different type of ram brand in there right now. So yea I would replace it, so its all the same.<br><br>  <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>Also, do you guys think I should replace my video card?  Or is replacing the memory going to be enough<hr></blockquote><br><br>What do you have now? Just onboard? Do you have a PCI-E slot? (CPU-Z, should tell you, under "Mainboard" tab.)<br><br>Can't really give you choices when I don't know what type of graphics slot your computer has, or the current PSU wattage your running..I'm guessing stock on that part. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620567</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:35:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620496</link>
<description><![CDATA[RobinM posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/442639" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=442639');">ztmike</a>:</small><br><br>He does gaming..<br><br>I just looked through the thread and I saw what type of ram you use, this should do ya good<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134747" >www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a&middot;&middot;&middot;20134747</A><br><br>$51 with free shipping for 2 sticks of 2gig ram for a total of 4gigs.<br><br>It is a desktop though right?<br> </div>Yes, a desktop.  So I should just replace the 2gig I already have?  And that price is great!<br><br>Also, do you guys think I should replace my video card?  Or is replacing the memory going to be enough?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620496</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:16:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620075</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : 2x2GB wouldnt need too which is kinda the point<br>why get slower ram for the same or more then you can get faster ram?<br><br>this is the same thing i tell every one else that upgrades ram<br><br>pull what you have put in 2x2GB of nice DDR2 1066 call it a day the price difference is 0 or some time less if you shop around <br><br>in this case the faster 1066 is 5 bucks less then "namebrand" Kingston which is kinda crappy any more imo <br>OP has a Q6600 which really needs DDR2 800 any way so and im sure the board can run 1066 if you really wanted to but running 1066 lets you run 5-5-5-12 at 800 with lower vdimm]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620075</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:19:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620062</link>
<description><![CDATA[ztmike posted : He has PC2 5300, you can mix the ram like that? ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620062</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:15:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620032</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : the thing is DDR2 is cheaper then air<br>the price saving from 2x1GB to 2x2GB is very small like 5-10 bucks at most no point in running 4 sicks and slowing your PC down when you have a matched set of likely much faster ram in a 2x2GB setup<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231226" >www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a&middot;&middot;&middot;20231226</A><br>heres 4GB and its 1066 and CHEAPER then that 667 <br>like i said DDR2 is insanely cheap no point not get good 1066 ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620032</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:06:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620005</link>
<description><![CDATA[ztmike posted : He does gaming..<br><br>I just looked through the thread and I saw what type of ram you use, this should do ya good<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134747" >www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a&middot;&middot;&middot;20134747</A><br><br>$51 with free shipping for 2 sticks of 2gig ram for a total of 4gigs.<br><br>It is a desktop though right?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22620005</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:00:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619992</link>
<description><![CDATA[dave posted : You've got 2GB, which is likely enough. It really depends on what you're doing. I've got a general-purpose Vista system (web, email, office tools) which is just fine with that, INCLUDING the fact that the shared-memory graphics snarfs up some of the RAM.<br><br>If you want to buy more, it depends on how many memory slots you have free. Best case, you've got 4 slots and 2 of them each has a 1-GB stick installed.  Buy two more 1-GB sticks.  So, maybe you won't be able to use the full 4GB, but you'll use as much as you can.<br><br>The only reason I can see for sticking at 3GB is that the cost difference is significant for you. And since I haven't looked at memory prices nor your bank statement, I can't be much use there.<br><br>Warning: I have met a few cheap motherboards where filling all 4 memory slots results in a flaky system. If that happens to you, your next best step is to consider discarding the memory you have, and buying two 2-GB sticks (assuming your motherboard supports them; use a good memory advisor like the one at Crucial's web site).<br><br>But, really, absent any data that says you're hurting for memory, just leave it at 2GB.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619992</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:57:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619962</link>
<description><![CDATA[ztmike posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/502781" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=502781');">RobinM</a>:</small><br><br>Nothing yet.  I am so confused at this point I really don't know what to do.  I don't understand most of what has been said here, and I would love if someone could please tell me in layman's terms what I should get.  I am tempted to go with the 3gigs of RAM, however.<br> </div>From a gamer to a gamer..honestly man..the savings you would get for going with 3gigs instead of 4 is not that much..<br><br>If I was you, I would just go with 4gigs. What type of ram do you have? I'll see what I can find for prices. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619962</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:50:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619956</link>
<description><![CDATA[dadkins posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/502781" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=502781');">RobinM</a>:</small><br><br>Nothing yet.  I am so confused at this point I really don't know what to do.  I don't understand most of what has been said here, and I would love if someone could please tell me in layman's terms what I should get.  I am tempted to go with the 3gigs of RAM, however.<br> </div>Just go with the 3GB and disregard all the posturing being thrown around in this now dead thread.  :hmm:<br><small>--<br>Think outside the Fox... <A HREF="http://www.opera.com/">Opera</a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619956</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:48:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619941</link>
<description><![CDATA[RobinM posted : Nothing yet.  I am so confused at this point I really don't know what to do.  I don't understand most of what has been said here, and I would love if someone could please tell me in layman's terms what I should get.  I am tempted to go with the 3gigs of RAM, however.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619941</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:43:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619934</link>
<description><![CDATA[ztmike posted : lol..wow this thread got derailed like a train wreck. <br><br>What did the OP ever go with?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619934</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:41:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619917</link>
<description><![CDATA[dave posted : Here: &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_quadro_fx_5800_us.html" >www.nvidia.com/object/product_qu&middot;&middot;&middot;_us.html</A><br><br>is a 4GB graphics card. It is supported on 32-bit Windows XP and 32-bit Windows Vista.<br><br>Do you suppose that a 4GB graphics card consumes 4GB of physical address space out of the total of 4GB of physical address space available to the entire system.<br><br>I don't know the answer, but my guess is "no, it doesn't"  ;-)<br><br>So, in principle the idea that an <i>N</i>-GB card always uses <i>N</i> GB of address space is not true, no?  <br><br>(Of course, particular cases may use up the whole <i>N</i>, I'm not saying they never do).]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619917</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:31:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619916</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : the data does infact get paged this is why we have huge amounts of ram on cards <br>copy to and from system ram is VERY SLOW even over PCI-e<br>when you load a level for game it loads all the assets for that level that will need to in the vram space a head of time<br><br>console with shared system/vram steam the data as needed which is why they get away with much smaller ram sizes <br><br>but on the PC front everything is loaded a head of time <br>and data is paged in an out as needed<br>if you have ever tryed to play a game on an older GPU with less then 256MB ram with lots of AA and high res textures you get stuttering this is a symptom of the copying that has to be done when the  card runs out of local ram and has to swap to system ram for more textures ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619916</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:31:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619892</link>
<description><![CDATA[dave posted : What you wrote about the MMU (Dynamic Address Translation) is true but irrelevant, since it describes how the virtual address space seen by code executing on the x68 is mapped to physical addresses.  And mentioning the need to read in pages from disks will confuse everyone.<br><br>Back to your main point.<br><br>It is entirely possible that a graphics board can possess more memory than it exposes to the physical address bus  (PCI, AGP, or the modern replacements) on the system. There's no law of nature that requires everything in the computer to see all memory that the graphics board possesses. The only memory that needs to be bus-addressed is memory that is used for communication between the CPU(s) and the graphics processor(s).  And it's also possible for a large amount of physical graphics-board memory to be selectively paged(*) into and out of a much smaller window of bus address space. <br><br>(*) does not imply anything gets copied, which would be slow. This is simply a change in some bus-to-board mapping hardware.<br><br>So, you're describing a plausible scenario. I don't know enough about current board architecture to know whether that's what actually happens.  I tend to suspect you're right, since from the viewpoint of the entire system, having an N-gigabyte device claim N gigabytes of scarce(**) bus address space _all the time_ would be a terrible design.<br><br>(**) scarce from the point of view of a 32-bit physical address width limit. Likely ok for 36-bit, fine for the 48-bit-or-whatever limit in current 64-bit systems, but these board designers know they're selling today into the canonical 32-bit Windows desktop. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619892</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:21:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619764</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/903563" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=903563');">Margolis</a>:</small><br><br>I don't know who is being called clueless here, but Longstreet is correct.  vista/xp 32 are limited to 4GB address space.  That includes space for bios, pci bus, video memory, etc...  With a 1GB video card, only ~3GB of system memory will be usable.  <br> </div>FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU<br><br>did you MISS ALL MY POST IT DOESNT WORK THAT WAY<br>THE RAM ON THE CARD IS NOT MAPPED 1 TO 1 ANY MORE AND HASNT BEEN SINCE MOST CARDS HAD OVER 256MB ON THEM <br>RAGGGEEEE<br>ITS THE SAME IN THAT SWAP FILE IS NOT MAPPED 1 TO 1 <br>WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND JUST LOOK AT THE LAST POST I MADE<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_address_space" >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_address_space</A><br><br><blockquote><br>Dynamic address translation<br><br>If, while executing an instruction, a CPU fetches an instruction located at a particular virtual address, fetches data from a specific virtual address or stores data to a particular virtual address, the virtual address must be translated to the corresponding physical address. This is done by a hardware component, sometimes called a memory management unit, which looks up the real address (from the page table) corresponding to a virtual address and passes the real address to the parts of the CPU which execute instructions. If the page tables indicate that the virtual memory page is not currently in real memory, the hardware raises a page fault exception (special internal signal) which invokes the paging supervisor component of the operating system (see below).<br></blockquote><br><br>vram is paged JUST like the swap file it has memory range it uses for this usely no bigger then 256MB or so]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619764</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:27:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619263</link>
<description><![CDATA[Margolis posted : I don't know who is being called clueless here, but Longstreet is correct.  vista/xp 32 are limited to 4GB address space.  That includes space for bios, pci bus, video memory, etc...  With a 1GB video card, only ~3GB of system memory will be usable.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619263</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:21:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619253</link>
<description><![CDATA[HeavyHemi posted : Actually 2 sticks of 2Gb would be a far better choice and cost essentially the same.  That isn't really debatable. But it is entertaing to read someone give bad advice and incorrect information with the absolute certainty of the truly clueless.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619253</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:16:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619251</link>
<description><![CDATA[Margolis posted : WoW is very cpu and memory intensive.  More memory helps.  A 64 bit os helps in that aspect since it is able to use the extra memory more efficiently.<br><br>Here is a shot of mine tonight in 10 man naxx.  64bit vista.<br><br>I was at 1.16GB memory before starting the game.<div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF nwrap COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/22619251?c=1443383&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyMjU5MDQ2NS54bWw%3D"><IMG class="apic" BORDER=0 TITLE="59780 bytes" WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=451 SRC="/r0/download/1443383.thumb600~769212c6b51177a747b0478abdf18f99/wowmemory.jpg/thumb.jpg" ALT="Click for full size"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619251</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:15:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619137</link>
<description><![CDATA[HeavyHemi posted : LOL, you just have to love these guys obviously used to running notepad on a low end system. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22619137</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:26:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612704</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : i can prove that wrong right now<br><br>note the ranges for the GTX260 add up to much less then is on the card <br><br>/thread have a nice day<br><br>the bigest range D0000000 to DFFFFFFF is 256MB in size all the others are 16 to 32MB total usage less then 512MB <br>total local ram on the card 896MB<div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF nwrap COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/22612704?c=1442931&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyMjU5MDQ2NS54bWw%3D"><IMG class="apic" BORDER=0 TITLE="135373 bytes" WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=654 SRC="/r0/download/1442931.thumb600~82aea0467c687015f8403c5c9005ba43/gpuaddress.png/thumb.jpg" ALT="Click for full size"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612704</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:50:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612621</link>
<description><![CDATA[longstreet posted : I'm talking about addressing space.  Video memory size reduces addressing space.  No room for debate on that.<br><br>Sometimes it can take more, up to a gig, but it's never less than the amount of memory on the card.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612621</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:30:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612504</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : wow your slow<br><br>it was just to show how it works >.> <br>the GPU pages ram just like swap file same IDEA<br>just like how the swap file doesnt need to have physical address for whole thing <br>the GPU does not need ALL of the ram mapped just a window it can use to page and for other IO<br>if you look at your GPU in device manager you will see it has 3-4 ranges 2-3 are for bulk data and 1 is for command IO<br>the GPUs ram is mapped virtually in the driver then paged via a hole the driver makes in the physical address space<br><br>BOTTOM LINE RAM ON THE GPU DOES NOT IMPACT USABLE SYSTEM RAM ANY MORE THEN ANY OTHER GPU BE IT 256MB or 10GB JUST LIKE THE SIZE OF THE SWAP FILE DOES NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON USABLE RAM ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612504</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:09:12 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612453</link>
<description><![CDATA[longstreet posted : CPU to Memory operations are several order of magnitude faster than CPU to drive operations.<br><br>Anyway, I think this tangent has gone on long enough.  There's not much knowledge the OP probably has gained through this.<br><br>Basically, with my suggestion the system would not start CPU -> drive operations as soon.  That's my point in a nutshell.<br><br>If the problem were the size of the video card and not the system memory, THEN you may have a point.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612453</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:55:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612433</link>
<description><![CDATA[elios posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1108984" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1108984');">longstreet</a>:</small><br><br>Anytime we start using a drive for memory, we've just lost the whole point of the conversation.<br> </div>not really the ram on the card is treated the same there is physical address range that maps to a vitrual one /thread<br>the card could have 1MB or 10GB doesnt matter <br>what changes is the size of that range which maxes out at ~512MB give or take<br>the GPU has its own memory controller and addressing <br>this then gets mapped to a physical range ~512MB wide regardless of Vram size<br><br>ie<br>a GTS260 with 800+MB on it in a 32bit XP set with 4GB of ram i see ~3.25 or so useable <br>512MB of that is GPU addressing the rest is other stuff that needs memory ranges ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612433</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:51:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Windows Vista and RAm</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612422</link>
<description><![CDATA[longstreet posted : Anytime we start using a drive for memory, we've just lost the whole point of the conversation.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Windows-Vista-and-RAm-22612422</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:49:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

